"Would the PlayStation have been a flop?"

I think the real question is would it exist ? If i remember correctly sony wanted to make a disk based system for Nintendo, but Nintendo refused, and thus ps1 was born.

Frankly, it wasn't just the storage medium that pushed people onto Sony platforms. By then, Nintendo had something of a compromised image with both developers, and to a lesser extent consumers, due to certain business decisions. For the different medium to have made enough difference, Nintendo would probably have to have been a very different company than the one it was.

If N64 used disks, nuclear war would have broken out between Germany and Madagascar. Butterfly effect yo.

Lol, the stuff here are so funny! But only some of you are actually answering any of my questions.

I think Nintendo, as you'd expect from a company that was on top for 2 consecutive generations, was overconfident and overestimated the power of a CD based hardware since their formula worked so well. But whatever happened for Nintendo to discard a disk based console really showed they had a narrow vision, not very different from today's Ninty.

You can say they are narrow on focus but to me they are a stubborn company. Donkey Kong sums them up. He was designed to be a stubborn character and maybe a reflection of themselves.

Actually Miyamoto said they considered calling him "Mule Kong" but that didn't quite sound right.

Being stubborn can be genius or madness. 

At the time the cartridge was a good choice. The biggest disadvantage was the cost per mbyte. The graphics, gameplay and loadtime were solid. I havent seen 1 game on the PS1 that can match Mario64, Zelda OOT, Majoras Mask, GoldenEye64. And Perfekt Dark64 graphics was way ahead that time.

annoying loading times would be the result.

1.) First off maybe try giving Sega some credit? The Genesis had a lot of great 1st/2nd party games and they actually deserve credit for pioneering the trend of marketing to older consumers. The competetion with Sega made Nintendo a better company too, by the end of the SNES era they had learned a lot of lessons and were a better company for it going into the N64-era. That and Super Mario 64 was a legit earth shattering game changer, whereas Mario World really wasn't and that allowed Sega to pounce with Sonic. The problem was Mario 64 had nothing to work with, because of cartridges there were no games to surround it with for months. 

2.) Europe was a challenge but it was really Nintendo that took that market for granted and treated Europeans 2nd class consumers. So they deserved what they got in that marketplace. But they were shaping up even there towards the end of the SNES era and GoldenEye was a huge hit in Europe. 

Give the N64 Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, Wave Race 64, Dragon Quest VII, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy Tactics, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Mario Kart 64, Turok, Smash Brothers, Star Fox 64, Pokemon Stadium, etc. exclusive and have Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania, Megaman, Street Fighter, Silent Hill, all Resident Evil, Dead Or Alive, Soul Reaver, Need For Speed, etc. stripped of Sony exclusivity, with the N64 getting a regular flow of games at all times like the Super NES did and lets see how well Sony does. 

I'll even leave them Tekken, Tomb Raider, Ridge Racer, Spyro, Crash, PaRappa, Gran Turismo, but even still, I think the chips fall very differently in that generation. I think the N64 would've outsold the SNES and even the NES in North America just because of market expansion for one and totally dominated in Japan.  

Sony isn't such a runaway beast when they have to compete against system's that aren't starved for games ... the DS beat the PSP, the 360 beat the PS3 for the majority of the last generation, etc. It's just that when you give Sony so much room to captialize by opponents that shoot themselves in the foot, they thrive on situations like that, they are very smart at exploiting their opposition's mistakes and making them pay for it.

But cost is the most single important factor in that problem. That's what trumps things basically every time. PS4 and X1 are the current examples of that when they first released. People back then usually didn't care if the PS1 games had polys that shaked around. VS N64 more stable, stronger system. People were wowed by CGI video cutscenes that didn't look like ass (in those days of gaming). As such on the CDi, Sega CD etc. They used real music, and had the games that Nintendo lost. Bascially correcting all the failed attempts at CD media in the early 90's.

N64 carts had the load time advantage. And first Party games that people really wanted. Thanks for Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon anime starting out 1 year later. If Nintendo had used CD's. Which they were stupidly doing as a addon, with the 64DD. Which should of been the default media the system used from the start. Just like how Sega should of made the Sega CD and/or 32X its own system. And not a tumor addon. History could of easily made the PS1 the Ouya of now.

It's also why we still use discs for retail. And not SD cards. SD cards would be the obious choice to switch too. Smaller, can't be scratched, or has to be held certain way, etc. And holds equal storage to BD-50. And would potentially make the systems smaller. But the cost blocks this for consoles. Nintendo in the N64 day banked on the Premium quality factor. Make an expensive and high quality product. That will beat out the unknown, but easier/cheaper one. People chose the $45-$50 games over the average $65-$120 N64 games.